THIS COMMENTARY
will be devoted mostly to analytical matters of text and translation, the kind
of things I'd discuss with my Urdu students if we were studying the asbaab
in class. But I'll also point out anything else that seems relevant and interesting,
just as I would in class. As I go through this text I'm going to translate it
with excruciating clunkiness, so as to tether my English as closely as possible
to the original Urdu. This approach will give us occasion to consider issues
of translation as they emerge. After all, I'm under no pressure to make a translation
in "normal" English, because the 1873 one is not only out there, but
in fact has a good historical claim to be considered the definitive public face
of this text. But the 1873 translation can only be called a friendly paraphrase;
it differs markedly from the Urdu. So markedly that in this commentary I won't
even mention minor differences, but will discuss only those that create significantly
different meanings.

The 'script bar' at the bottom of the
page will give you viewing choices for Urdu words; note that the spellings in
Devanagari will be based on Urdu spellings, and will not be those used in modern
standard Hindi (for complex reasons that are explained in the *Ghalib*
website). There's a link at the bottom of the page to the online Platts Dictionary
too (though you'd be foolish not to have your own). Remember that the Urdu text
provided here was calligraphed in 1957, so it will be good practice in familiarizing
yourself with the script styles, conventions of (non-)punctuation, etc., of
older texts. As older Urdu texts go, this 1957 one is in fact extremely clear
and legible. If you're part of the new generation and read mostly computer-generated
Urdu script, the experience will be good for you.

[Intro]
[Intro.x] IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MERCIFUL,
THE COMPASSIONATE
== *093* == *094*
==

One of Sir Sayyid's arguments is
that the British overestimate the importance of the events of 1857 (see [4.10]),
so I've decided not to capitalize and formally name the episode. Sir Sayyid
seems to use ba;Gaavat (which I translate throughout
as 'rebellion'), sarkashii (which I translate throughout
as 'revolt'), and fasaad (which I translate throughout
as 'agitation'), more or less interchangeably. In his original 1859 Urdu edition,
the word on the *title page* is in fact
sarkashii . I chose my three equivalents after some
thought. 1) ba;Gaavat is a very formal, political word,
and also gives rise to the active noun baa;Gii , which
I'm thus able to render as 'rebel'. 2) sarkashii , literally
'head-liftingness', is a broader and more general term; Sir Sayyid doesn't
use its noun sarkash at all, probably because that could
mean merely 'an arrogant person'. (Thus the absence of 'revolter' in English
is not a problem.) 3) fasaad can refer to many kinds
of turmoil and disturbance; it could apply to random riots and urban mob violence
as well as to a formal political rebellion. I chose 'agitation' since it has
a similarly wide range of meaning in English, but sounds more purposeful than
'turmoil' or 'disturbance'. Once in a while he also uses ;Gadr
, which I've translated as "sedition" (mostly because I can't think
of any other suitable English equivalent to assign).

Is all this scrupulousness really
necessary? In this case, I'm not sure, because I don't think Sir
Sayyid uses these various terms in any consistently and meaningfully different
ways. But in my experience it's better to start out keeping track of as much
information as possible; it's infuriating to discover later on that you want
it, and have to go back and boringly recover it. And do you need to be such
a scrupulous translator in the first place? That depends on the importance
of the text, and the kind of translation you're doing. In my view, all you
really owe your readers is TRUTH IN LABELING; but that, you owe them with
a deep ethical force. If you want to play happily in the fields of "transcreation,"
changing the words and phrases of the original at will, then just TELL your
reader that's what you plan to do, and then nobody has any right to complain.

What I like is just the opposite:
I like using every resource of the English language, and even giving English
a bit of a twist at times, to bring the reader as close to the original text
as possible. I think this is a far more compelling and fascinating goal than
merely creating a pleasing effect in English (which, in prose at least, isn't
very difficult). The present translation is just one more experiment in that
"bent English" direction.

[Urdu 1859][0.0]
[0.0x] WHAT WERE THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION
IN HINDUSTAN?
== *095* ==
[0.1] [0.1x]
Definition of "Rebellion" exemplified with instances.
== *096* ==

Sir Sayyid addresses us readers familiarly
as tum , since he uses the imperative jaan
lo . Throughout the text, he speaks of 'our Government' with an almost
touching possessiveness that's not reflected in the 1873 translation.

The 1873 translation is clearly wrong
in the case of definition (1).

Sir Sayyid describes the year 1857
as a naazuk vaqt , for which 'sad
time' is a misleading translation: something more like 'complex' or
'delicate' or 'awkward' would be much better.

The imagery about streams merging
into water seems to have been invented by the translators, unless by some
chance there's a final sentence missing in the Urdu text (as there seems to
be in [0.4g]).

[0.3]
[0.3x] The Rebellion of 1857 did not
originate from a single cause, but from a complication of causes.
== *097* ==
[0.4] [0.4x]
The distribution of "Chuppaties," had not league for its object.
== *098* ==
[0.5] [0.5x]
Russia and Persia not chargeable with a league in this matter.
== *099* ==
[0.6] [0.6x]
The subject of the Proclamation which was found in the tent of a Persian Prince
discussed.
[0.7] [0.7x]
The despatch of a Firman by the ex-king of Delhi to the king of Persia not improbable,
but not the origin of the rebellion.
== *100* ==
[0.8] [0.8x]
The annexation of Oudh not the cause of the general rise.== *101*
==

The last phrase in the 1873 translation
seems necessary to complete the meaning; but it isn't present in the Urdu,
which ends simply with the names of some minor rulers who were counterexamples.
Might it have once been present in the Urdu, and then have been accidentally
omitted somehow? Or does Sir Sayyid expect his readers to understand that
it's rhetorically implied?

[0.9]
[0.9x] The national league not framed
with the view of overthrowing the government of strangers.== *102*
== *103* ==

Here's the first occurrence of the
vexatious, slippery word qaum . Here it seems initially
to refer to all Indians. In the 1873 translation it's here rendered as 'national'--
which is common, but always highly problematical. The translators have also
converted a 'longing' and 'regret' (apparently for former times) into the
quite different idea that foreigners were 'hated' and 'detested'.

Halfway through the section, we find
the Company warring 'with every qaum of Hindustan',
apparently illustrated by 'Hindus, Muslims'.

By the end of the passage, the discussion
has shifted to an argument about Muslims alone.

[0.10]
[0.10x] The position of Ex-king of Delhi
well-known within the town, and its environs, but overrated in the district
Provinces.

Really 'former king' would be more
accurate, but 'ex-king' is very convenient, and also enjoyably brisk, so I've
retained it.

[0.11]
[0.11x] The declaration of Lord Amherst,
in the year 1827, to the effect that the sovereignty of India belongs to the
British Government, and that it no longer existed in the Timour family did not
offend any one.
== *104* ==

The Urdu version doesn't offer this
as a separate heading; it simply combines its material with the heading before.

[0.12]
[0.12x] The Mahommadans did not contemplate
jehad against the Christians prior to the out-break.
== *105* ==

There's quite a difference between
the second and third sentences of the 1873 translation, and the Urdu text:
was jihad impossible because the Government didn't interfere with Muslim religious
freedom, or because Muslims were under Government protection? Perhaps the
translators thought these two situations were very similar, but I've tried
to stay closer to the Urdu.

[0.13]
[0.13x] The preaching of Jehad in India,
35 years before with this reservation, its practice against the British Government
was opposed to the doctrine of the Mahommadan religion and from the same cause
its practice on the other side of the Indus provinces, i.e. against the Seiks
was held before.
== *106* ==
[0.14] [0.14x]
None of the acts committed by the Mahommadan rebels during the disturbances
were in accordance with the tenets of the Mahommadan religion.

How very difficult it is to translate
bhalaa as an exclamation! I've used 'what the hell!',
but that doesn't really do the trick, because the Urdu idiom is without even
the surviving trace of (ir)religious imagery present in the English one. It's
really kind of untranslatable and uncapturable. Still, I had to make the attempt,
because the energy and what might be called the 'indignant denial' effect
of bhalaa needed to be shown.

[0.15]
[0.15x] The Futwah of Jehad printed
at Delhi was a counterfeit one.
== *107* == [0.16]
[0.16x] A large number of the Moulvies
who considered the King of Delhi a violator of the law left off praying in the
Royal Mosque.
== *108* ==
[0.17] [0.17x]
The same persons whose seals are said to be affixed to the Futwa at Delhi protected
the lives and honour of Christians.
== *109* ==

The 1873 translation concludes that
where Hindus did rebel, "matters were
carried to as great extremes." This is a misreading of vuh
bhii kuchh kam nahii;N hai to refer to a degree of violence, whereas
it's simply part of a numerical statement (the vuh refers
to the number of districts in which Hindus rebelled).

[0.18]
[0.18x] The Bengal army was not previously
in league for an out-break.
== *110* ==
[0.19] [0.19x]
Nor was there any league between the army and Ex-king though it is not improbable
that some Sepoy or Non-Commissioned Officer may have been his disciple.
== *111* ==

This paragraph is couched in Sufistic
language that is not reflected in the 1873 translation. The King is described
as not a 'saint and a sanctified being' [valii aur muqaddas
hastii], and people become his 'disciples' [muriid]
out of advantage. There are even echoes here of Akbar's (in)famous Din-e Ilahi,
in which he apparently became a kind of Sufi pir to a small group of select
followers.

The word used for a common soldier
is talangah ; it's contrasted to 'Subahdar' for an officer.
It apparently comes from Telingana, home of many early recruits.

Sir Sayyid transliterates 'Ellenborough'
as alanbaraa -- a wonderful echo of British pronunciation.

[0.20]
[0.20x] The non-admission of a native
as a member into the Legislative Council was the original cause of the out-break.
[0.21][0.21x]
The importance of such an admission discussed.
== *112* == *113*
== *114* ==

There's
an extra nah near the end of the second line of p. 113
that shouldn't be there; and in the sixth line, vaaqifiyat
ought to have a privative naa in front of it. These
are not just my intuitions: I checked the Salim ud-Din Quraishi Urdu text,
and verified that it does not display these errors.

The 1873 translation says, "To
form a Parliament from the natives of India is of course out of the question."
But Sir Sayyid seems to be speaking of access by Indians to the British Parliament,
not of some new local deliberative body.

One of Sir Sayyid's most common mannerisms
is to begin sentences with "without a doubt" or words to that effect.
Sometimes bilaa shub'ah , sometimes beshak
, sometimes is me;N shak nahii;N , and so on. I've used
similar small variations ("undoubtedly," "there's no doubt,"
"unquestionably") to reflect this, but haven't tried to correlate
them systematically to the Urdu forms, since I don't think the differences
among them are meaningful to Sir Sayyid.

[0.22]
[0.22x] The non-admission of such a
member proved a hindrance to the development of the good feeling of the Indian
subject towards the Government and of their good intention towards it; on the
contrary, contrary effects were produced. == *115*
== *116* == *117*
==

The change in similes is fascinating:
why go from the literal 'sweet poison and a honeyed dagger and a cold flame'
to 'slow poison, a rope of sand, a treacherous
flame of fire'? Unlike many of the 1873 translators'
changes, this one isn't easy to explain; and it surely destroys the whole
rhetorical intent of the original.

It becomes clear from the oblique
plural hinduustaaniyo;N that Sir Sayyid does envision
more than one Indian's being added to the Legislative Council. He also seems
to consider the possibility of Indians' being chosen for it the way members
of Parliament are chosen. He's a wonderfully slippery writer at times-- in
the midst of his show of humility are flashes of a very matter-of-fact assertiveness.

Note for translators: in English
'to know' almost always implies reliable knowledge, while jaannaa
keeps open a wide window for error; so it's often better translated as 'consider',
'think', 'believe', or the like.

[0.23]
[0.23x] The outbreak of rebellion proceeded
from the following five causes.
== *118* == *119*
==

'Neglect' is a much weaker term than
tark karnaa , which involves an active rejection or
renunciation.

'Disaffection' is a thorough mistranslation
of be-ihtimaamii , which means a lack or defect of supervision,
management, or the like. (Platts p.109). Here's a notable case where the translators
have (surely deliberately?) distorted Sir Sayyid's meaning in a most important
way.